Doll v. State, 223 So. 3d 331

In Nov. 1992 a jury convicted Antonio Doll of burglary of a structure with a firearm and aggravated assault; at sentencing (Dec. 1992) the trial court designated him a habitual violent felony offender.
The court imposed 30 years (with a 15-year minimum mandatory) on the burglary and 10 years (with a 3-year minimum mandatory) on the aggravated assault; the 10-year term was ordered consecutive to the 30-year term; minimum mandatories were ordered to run concurrently.
Doll’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Doll has repeatedly filed postconviction challenges in the Third District (at least thirteen proceedings) contesting the habitual offender designation and alleged sentencing errors; the Third District has repeatedly rejected these claims.
In the instant habeas petition Doll argued (1) his written sentencing order conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncements (rendering sentences illegal) and (2) his habitual violent felony offender designation was improper.
The Third District denied the petition and issued an order to show cause directing Doll to explain why he should not be barred from further pro se filings in the underlying circuit case, warning of sanctions for unauthorized filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doll’s sentences are illegal because the written sentence conflicts with oral pronouncements	Doll: written order does not match oral sentence; thus sentences are illegal and warrant relief	State: identical claim previously rejected; no basis for relief here	Court denied the claim as previously decided against Doll (citing prior denial)
Whether Doll was improperly designated a habitual violent felony offender	Doll: designation was improper and invalidates sentence enhancement	State: designation was proper; claim already litigated and rejected	Court denied claim as previously rejected by the Third District
Whether Doll should be barred from filing further pro se proceedings in the underlying case	Doll: (implicitly) should be allowed to continue filings	State/Court: repeated, unsuccessful filings justify restriction and sanctions	Court ordered Doll to show cause within 45 days why he should not be prohibited from further pro se filings and warned of sanctions if he fails to show good cause

Doll v. State, 626 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentences)
Doll v. State, 917 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (rejecting challenge to habitual violent felony offender designation)
Doll v. State, 207 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (rejecting claim that written sentencing order conflicted with oral pronouncement)